The weaknesses of Sun's Java products in the actual market would be an advantage for IBM. No company wants to acquire a competing product, which will involve an expensive merge process to bring into the present product lineup. They'd buy the Java division to get the JavaSoft/standards part, and take Sun ONE as a throwaway.
SimEarth for DOS convinced me to finally get a color VGA display. I ran an inexpensive paper-white VGA monitor on my 8088 and then '286 box, only switching to color when I saw, and had to have, SimEarth for DOS.
You're staring at an 'Application has failed, shall we purge it out of memory' dialogue. So of course clicking 'OK' will purge it out of memory, 'Cancel' will cancel the purge operation and load the debugger instead.
On UNIX it would dump a core file in some random directory and leave you to figure out where.
They should have just written a script that removed your root access. It wouldn't have even had to be run that often....
Re:SCO did not copy the infringing code in SCO Lin
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 1
They have openly stated that they will not disclose the infringing code, because that would allow the Linux distributors to stop infringing their IP by removing the suspect code.
Cite, please.
Yeah, I know. Asking for a citation from an A.C. on slashdot. ..
Re:Might not be so good.
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 1
The point isn't that the whole Open Source Community participated.
The point is that there is a subculture of rabid weirdoes within the OS community who will do this to any entity they see as a 'threat.' And the further point is that such a large segment of the OS community seems to tacitly nod at them.
This is actual honest to goodness FUD material being generated in real time. For the use of people who want to slam community supported Open Source.
No, actually it's probably a shareholder in the paper company that made the paper formerly used for letterhead at SCO. They switched to a different type of paper, and he's outraged and waging war on them now.
Yeah, that's about as likely as it is that it's someone unrelated to the Linux zealot community. Yep.
On the smokey battlefield of a network on which all these 'battles' and 'counter-battles' are being fought, not a hell of a lot of content transfer will be possible.
The RIAA can still sell CD at traditional music stores, though. So unless you're advocating actual sabatogue of Music Stores, your counterattack strategy will just be a shot in your own foot.
What you say sounds good to executives in board meetings, but it goes against everything that the 'PC Revolution' has historically stood for.
The boom in Personal Computer technology happened because people who could use the power of a computer were given the tools to make use of that power autonomously. It was a very liberating thing when it happened. I remember the old days. The secretaries at work were all stuck on Wyse terminals connected to a hulking Xenix mini. They'd already had a bit of experience on a PC, so they knew it wasn't acceptable for their documents to *bip* go away because some fumbling computer operator messed up. Crashes on PCs happened and do happen, but if people feel more in control of their system, they're also more likely to feel responsible for it.
Maybe that's just history these days in many settings, but it's how things used to be.
Ok - so you've unix' IP, so what ? What have you done with it. Hybernate and wait for unix to hatch by itself and pour money on you. Come on...
Sounds like exactly what Ray Noorda did with the DR-DOS code base. He bought it solely as a vehicle to sue Microsoft. But that was against Microsoft, so a whole lot of you guys were cheering him on.
And whomever organizes this little 'small claims court' racket better be ready for some close scrutiny. Filing lawsuits purely as a form of harassment is frowned on by judges.
It's a moot point, though. No IT Professional with the credentials to actually be a player in that sort of legal case is fool enough to risk said credentials on such a sophmoric stunt.
The theory is that SCO shipped Linux kernel with the infracting code in it, so now they magically can't own that code, even though they weren't the party that put the infracting code in. But if they were unaware at the time that the infracting code was in it, it's ludicrous to claim they suddenly have surrendered portions of their code base.
People really need to be careful regarding logical handwaving tricks like that. There are PHBs out there who might actually believe your theories; they'll pitch ALL GPL code out of their shops and set up quarentines if that is the case. It certainly doesn't make the case for a business friendly Open Source process.
Do you seriously think Programmer G at Company D can slip a little code from Company E into a GPL product that Company E also contributes to and Company E is going to surrender their code base to the FSF?
If so, stand over there so the rest of us can snicker at you.
Microsoft spent many, many thousands of dollars in the look-and-feel lawsuit against Apple Computer establishing the right of the XPde project to do exactly what they have done.
If Apple Computer had won the lawsuit, Microsoft would be free to shut down this project. However, Microsoft doesn't do things like that. They have a long history of not doing things like that merely over 'look-and-feel' issues. That's really more of an Apple Computer kind of thing.
Well, obviously both control freak scenarios you propose have expense, both the one where a 'huge support staff' comes out and screws up each user's computer at least once a year, or the (only) alternative you offer, where everybody has fancy dumb terminals and the users have to constantly watch their back because IT screwed something up again.
It's not an either/or situation, though if you're on said 'support staff' or entangled in the kind of mess they end up fostering, it probably looks that way.
Many people don't need anybody fsking up their workstations. I know I never have when I've worked in large companies. And the IT staff generally has known that and just stayed out of my cube and the development lab full of networked machines I maintained.
And I don't want to pay higher taxes for yet another 'affirmative action for software' process. Mandates carry significant cost. Perhaps there should be a mandated bidding process any time somebody implements an Open Source server at a government institution. Are you prepared to fill out all the paperwork, and present your proposal to the selection committee, before you're allowed to put a Linux printer server on the network? There might be significant cost differences in your chosen solution, which rolls in a lot of 'job security' for you, as opposed to a commercial turn-key solution for which management can hire any number of people to maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
The weaknesses of Sun's Java products in the actual market would be an advantage for IBM. No company wants to acquire a competing product, which will involve an expensive merge process to bring into the present product lineup. They'd buy the Java division to get the JavaSoft/standards part, and take Sun ONE as a throwaway.
SimEarth for DOS convinced me to finally get a color VGA display. I ran an inexpensive paper-white VGA monitor on my 8088 and then '286 box, only switching to color when I saw, and had to have, SimEarth for DOS.
So I am assuming that since you eschew control, all your kids have root level access on all your computers at home.
Right?
You're staring at an 'Application has failed, shall we purge it out of memory' dialogue. So of course clicking 'OK' will purge it out of memory, 'Cancel' will cancel the purge operation and load the debugger instead.
On UNIX it would dump a core file in some random directory and leave you to figure out where.
They should have just written a script that removed your root access. It wouldn't have even had to be run that often....
They have openly stated that they will not disclose the infringing code, because that would allow the Linux distributors to stop infringing their IP by removing the suspect code.
.
Cite, please.
Yeah, I know. Asking for a citation from an A.C. on slashdot. .
The point isn't that the whole Open Source Community participated.
The point is that there is a subculture of rabid weirdoes within the OS community who will do this to any entity they see as a 'threat.' And the further point is that such a large segment of the OS community seems to tacitly nod at them.
This is actual honest to goodness FUD material being generated in real time. For the use of people who want to slam community supported Open Source.
No, actually it's probably a shareholder in the paper company that made the paper formerly used for letterhead at SCO. They switched to a different type of paper, and he's outraged and waging war on them now.
Yeah, that's about as likely as it is that it's someone unrelated to the Linux zealot community. Yep.
My favorite game on Linux has always been Koules.
I am not sure how a novelization would work though. But Koules is one neat game.
If your tactic doesn't work against the typical trojans being spread out there (it doesn't), why would it magically work against this possible trojan?
On the smokey battlefield of a network on which all these 'battles' and 'counter-battles' are being fought, not a hell of a lot of content transfer will be possible.
The RIAA can still sell CD at traditional music stores, though. So unless you're advocating actual sabatogue of Music Stores, your counterattack strategy will just be a shot in your own foot.
What you say sounds good to executives in board meetings, but it goes against everything that the 'PC Revolution' has historically stood for.
The boom in Personal Computer technology happened because people who could use the power of a computer were given the tools to make use of that power autonomously. It was a very liberating thing when it happened. I remember the old days. The secretaries at work were all stuck on Wyse terminals connected to a hulking Xenix mini. They'd already had a bit of experience on a PC, so they knew it wasn't acceptable for their documents to *bip* go away because some fumbling computer operator messed up. Crashes on PCs happened and do happen, but if people feel more in control of their system, they're also more likely to feel responsible for it.
Maybe that's just history these days in many settings, but it's how things used to be.
That *would* be an interesting tactic, and it's probably in the RIAA's tactic book. Leech the people who offer shares to blazes.
The 'consensus model' could suck real bad as things unravel. Probably will.
The problem is, in the real world, you can't just ignore correspondence. Particularly correspondence from lawyers.
Don't burn any courier-delivered registered mail unopened, either. It sucks what can result from that.
Ok - so you've unix' IP, so what ? What have you done with it. Hybernate and wait for unix to hatch by itself and pour money on you. Come on...
Sounds like exactly what Ray Noorda did with the DR-DOS code base. He bought it solely as a vehicle to sue Microsoft. But that was against Microsoft, so a whole lot of you guys were cheering him on.
I think he's a scientologist.
And whomever organizes this little 'small claims court' racket better be ready for some close scrutiny. Filing lawsuits purely as a form of harassment is frowned on by judges.
It's a moot point, though. No IT Professional with the credentials to actually be a player in that sort of legal case is fool enough to risk said credentials on such a sophmoric stunt.
The theory is that SCO shipped Linux kernel with the infracting code in it, so now they magically can't own that code, even though they weren't the party that put the infracting code in. But if they were unaware at the time that the infracting code was in it, it's ludicrous to claim they suddenly have surrendered portions of their code base.
People really need to be careful regarding logical handwaving tricks like that. There are PHBs out there who might actually believe your theories; they'll pitch ALL GPL code out of their shops and set up quarentines if that is the case. It certainly doesn't make the case for a business friendly Open Source process.
Do you seriously think Programmer G at Company D can slip a little code from Company E into a GPL product that Company E also contributes to and Company E is going to surrender their code base to the FSF?
If so, stand over there so the rest of us can snicker at you.
Fully paperless, and nobody needs an individual desk?
This is sounding more and more like the 'government office' that Y.T.'s mom works in, in 'Snow Crash.'
In other words: big time suckage.
Sounds about right for something McNeely would advocate. Is Larry Ellision involved in it too, somehow?
Microsoft spent many, many thousands of dollars in the look-and-feel lawsuit against Apple Computer establishing the right of the XPde project to do exactly what they have done.
If Apple Computer had won the lawsuit, Microsoft would be free to shut down this project. However, Microsoft doesn't do things like that. They have a long history of not doing things like that merely over 'look-and-feel' issues. That's really more of an Apple Computer kind of thing.
Maybe he meant Forged News.
Well, obviously both control freak scenarios you propose have expense, both the one where a 'huge support staff' comes out and screws up each user's computer at least once a year, or the (only) alternative you offer, where everybody has fancy dumb terminals and the users have to constantly watch their back because IT screwed something up again.
It's not an either/or situation, though if you're on said 'support staff' or entangled in the kind of mess they end up fostering, it probably looks that way.
Many people don't need anybody fsking up their workstations. I know I never have when I've worked in large companies. And the IT staff generally has known that and just stayed out of my cube and the development lab full of networked machines I maintained.
Oh that's right. Anything that isn't abashedly pro-Open Source is based on a 'personal preference for Microsoft.'
I forgot that this was a bipolar world, and that we all are Holy Warriors.
The article appears to be about mandating that government agencies consider Open Source software.
Isn't that clear enough?
Even more of them were clearly prevented from voting for Algore in Florida. Needless to say they all had that privledge in St. Louis.
And I don't want to pay higher taxes for yet another 'affirmative action for software' process. Mandates carry significant cost. Perhaps there should be a mandated bidding process any time somebody implements an Open Source server at a government institution. Are you prepared to fill out all the paperwork, and present your proposal to the selection committee, before you're allowed to put a Linux printer server on the network? There might be significant cost differences in your chosen solution, which rolls in a lot of 'job security' for you, as opposed to a commercial turn-key solution for which management can hire any number of people to maintain.